Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Christians and tattoos
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
What is my stance?
when did I ever say anything about spiritual truth?
what are you talking about?


This is what I'm taking about.

August Spies wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I love how you all pat each other on the back withotu even knowing what you are talking about.
august, you obviously know the truth. so what is it? is atheism the truth? you're so hellbent on proving that the bible is crap.. why is that? i'm just curious.


bullshit I am not patting anyone else on the back. Luke makes a post and four people congragulate him on it. None of the "god bashers" congragulate each other after each post.

I don't know the ultimate truth is. I am open to the possibility of higher powers. However, I DO know the bible is so full of errors and idiocy that it can't possibly be right.

Why am I concerend with disproving the bible?
Organized reliigions is one of the enemies of mankind. It has caused more harm to humanity than perhaps anything else. It has been a constant roadblack to progress of every kind (philosophical, artistic, scientific, political). It is forced upon people from birth and force feed to them and many other reasons.
Whatever purpose organized religion served in the past, it is nothing but a dead weight on humanities shoulder today.


Brian
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

I don't know the ultimate truth is. I am open to the possibility of higher powers. However, I DO know the bible is so full of errors and idiocy that it can't possibly be right.

ill stand by that.
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
I don't know the ultimate truth is. I am open to the possibility of higher powers. However, I DO know the bible is so full of errors and idiocy that it can't possibly be right.

ill stand by that.


11 pages of criticism of religions which provide for some of us the answer to "the ultimate truth" question yet instead of asking us what we see you'd rather lambaste on hyper drive with no definite answer of your own.

I don't get it.

I'd never thought I see reverse induction applied to spirituality.

Brian
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

I am not arrogant enough to believe I know the 100% truth. However, I do know that christianity is bullshit (and organized religions in general).

I am open to the possiblity of a higher power, I am not open to the possibility of the bible being the accurate word of god.

seeing as we are talking about the bible/christianity I don't see what your problem is.
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
luke geraty



Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 35
Location: minneap
a few words and thoughts before I discontinue posting here..  Reply with quote  

1. MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

2. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I'm going to simply post the argument for this that most theologians would tell you:

Luke 3:23

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.."
The novice should take care to note that there are no parenthesis in the original Greek text. These parenthesis were put there by the translators. Unfortunately, they were put in the wrong place. "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli," is the statement. While, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph," is the interjection, and thus what should have been put in parenthesis as the qualifying comment of the passage. In other words, the verse should read like this:


"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli...
This clearly says, "Jesus, which was the Son of Eli," which was the son of Matthat. See the distinction here? The phrase (being as supposed the Son of Joseph) is simply the interjection. This is what belongs in parentheses and in no way should be read as Joseph was the Son of Heli (Eli). Joseph is not the son of Heli, Heli was Mary's father, making Jesus the Son of Heli. To prove this, you need only remove the interjection and you have the 'clear' understanding of what is written.

TO PUT IT SIMPLY: Jesus was born of a virgin birth which means that he would have been SUPPOSEDLY the son of Joseph but in reality he was NOT from the lineage of Joseph in the truest fact (actually he was because he was lineage of David). So basically your 'contradiction' actually is a confirmation of Jesus' virgin birth.

-----------------

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


1st off, your version there omits Gad... might want to keep him in this:)

There's not a really clearly defined reason why there are two seperate accounts. I CAN say that 1st and 2nd Samuel were BOTH written anonymously and were MOST likely written from the records of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.... I can say that there's LOTS of unclear information that is derived from the ancient times in regards to numbers/ dates/ etc. 2nd Samuel was PROBABLY written some time around 930B.C. where 1 Chronicles was written probably around 450 to 400B.C., which means there was quite a bit of a time difference there.... which could have accounted for the error in the records.

---------

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

This is going to require further research to give you the answer that you would wish. I know I have some notes around here somewhere on it from Old Test. theology but I must find them... I hope I can at least.... it MIGHT be one of those "there's no clear definition". I do know that there's some debate as to whether these are the same Michals because David was known to have had QUITE a few wives and if you study the Bible AT ALL, you will find the importance of names. Names meant QUITE a bit to people in the Old Test. days.... your name was not only who you were but WHAT you were. One thought by some theologians was that Michal, which is derived from the Hebrew meaning "Who is like Heaven" or "Who is like God". It's very very possible he had two Michals in his group of women that were from upper class families and were named rightly. This is an example of one of the reasons for the 'contradiction' but there's one more which I can't remember or find that has to do with the time frame as well and the Hebrew interpretation for "day of her death"..... hope that gave a little insight though.

---------

But, I want to point something out here... you are basically attacking 'historical records' in the Bible. I don't hold to the "every single word in the bible is 100% accurage' because there ARE some contradictions that happened because A.) possibly the writer was using records that weren't accurage when writing his accounts, or B.) the person translating it was off (which happened quite a bit).

The main fundamental Truths in the Bible are NOT contradictory: for instance issues dealing with Salvation, The Holy Spirit, God the Father, etc.

It's important to take that into consideration when you are bringing out 'contradictions'.

You have to look at the Bible as more then just a piece of paper. Someone said before that there hasn't been ONE shred of evidence DISPROVING the bible historically... which you read wrong and interpreted incorrectly (go back and read it... it's quite silly:)..... you also won't find a fundamental truth that's contradictory...

I'd invite you to try though.

you can adhere to Christianity being B.S. all you want, but the fact remains that you are a pretty good example of someone who heeps all 'christian' based theologies (catholics, lutherns, baptists, etc) into a huge pot and just reading what youv'e posted so far proves that you know little about these other then a few of your small experiences..... For your crappy experiences and all the 'bad' that Christianity has caused there's MILLIONS of people who would look at what you have to say and laugh.... and then tell you the God Christianity has brought them.....

that's not to say you haven't experienced some wierdo Christians... not at all, but it's to say that your pigeon holing a huge amount of people and looking quite foolish in so doing.

I'm assuming you probably were hurt by a couple Christians (those who called you a doubting Thomas??) and this is your way to 'lash out'.... which is fine.. I hope you find what your looking for, but please stop the outlandish 'facts' you like to throw around.

Secondly.... I don't think I'll be posting anymoreon this because you JUST said it yourself... you aren't open to the possibility of the Bible being the Word of God.... which is fine.... I don't need to waste my time posting responses when I am read your posts openly and have even gotten a few good thoughts from them.... but for me to say I'm not open to the possibility that I'm wrong and you are right would be foolish of me...

Any person who disregards truth or the search for truth just because he feels like it probably won't find it..... whether it's where he's been looking or where he chooses not too.

Peace and respect...
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
FoJaR



Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 1534
Location: VA.
 Reply with quote  

^ word
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
luke geraty



Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 35
Location: minneap
Re: a few words and thoughts before I discontinue posting he  Reply with quote  

luke geraty wrote:
1. MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

2. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I'm going to simply post the argument for this that most theologians would tell you:

Luke 3:23

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.."
The novice should take care to note that there are no parenthesis in the original Greek text. These parenthesis were put there by the translators. Unfortunately, they were put in the wrong place. "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli," is the statement. While, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph," is the interjection, and thus what should have been put in parenthesis as the qualifying comment of the passage. In other words, the verse should read like this:


"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli...
This clearly says, "Jesus, which was the Son of Eli," which was the son of Matthat. See the distinction here? The phrase (being as supposed the Son of Joseph) is simply the interjection. This is what belongs in parentheses and in no way should be read as Joseph was the Son of Heli (Eli). Joseph is not the son of Heli, Heli was Mary's father, making Jesus the Son of Heli. To prove this, you need only remove the interjection and you have the 'clear' understanding of what is written.

TO PUT IT SIMPLY: Jesus was born of a virgin birth which means that he would have been SUPPOSEDLY the son of Joseph but in reality he was NOT from the lineage of Joseph in the truest fact (actually he was because he was lineage of David). So basically your 'contradiction' actually is a confirmation of Jesus' virgin birth.

-----------------

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


1st off, your version there omits Gad... might want to keep him in this:)

There's not a really clearly defined reason why there are two seperate accounts. I CAN say that 1st and 2nd Samuel were BOTH written anonymously and were MOST likely written from the records of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.... I can say that there's LOTS of unclear information that is derived from the ancient times in regards to numbers/ dates/ etc. 2nd Samuel was PROBABLY written some time around 930B.C. where 1 Chronicles was written probably around 450 to 400B.C., which means there was quite a bit of a time difference there.... which could have accounted for the error in the records.

---------

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

This is going to require further research to give you the answer that you would wish. I know I have some notes around here somewhere on it from Old Test. theology but I must find them... I hope I can at least.... it MIGHT be one of those "there's no clear definition". I do know that there's some debate as to whether these are the same Michals because David was known to have had QUITE a few wives and if you study the Bible AT ALL, you will find the importance of names. Names meant QUITE a bit to people in the Old Test. days.... your name was not only who you were but WHAT you were. One thought by some theologians was that Michal, which is derived from the Hebrew meaning "Who is like Heaven" or "Who is like God". It's very very possible he had two Michals in his group of women that were from upper class families and were named rightly. This is an example of one of the reasons for the 'contradiction' but there's one more which I can't remember or find that has to do with the time frame as well and the Hebrew interpretation for "day of her death"..... hope that gave a little insight though.

---------

But, I want to point something out here... you are basically attacking 'historical records' in the Bible. I don't hold to the "every single word in the bible is 100% accurage' because there ARE some contradictions that happened because A.) possibly the writer was using records that weren't accurage when writing his accounts, or B.) the person translating it was off (which happened quite a bit).

The main fundamental Truths in the Bible are NOT contradictory: for instance issues dealing with Salvation, The Holy Spirit, God the Father, etc.

It's important to take that into consideration when you are bringing out 'contradictions'.

You have to look at the Bible as more then just a piece of paper. Someone said before that there hasn't been ONE shred of evidence DISPROVING the bible historically... which you read wrong and interpreted incorrectly (go back and read it... it's quite silly:)..... you also won't find a fundamental truth that's contradictory...

I'd invite you to try though.

you can adhere to Christianity being B.S. all you want, but the fact remains that you are a pretty good example of someone who heeps all 'christian' based theologies (catholics, lutherns, baptists, etc) into a huge pot and just reading what youv'e posted so far proves that you know little about these other then a few of your small experiences..... For your crappy experiences and all the 'bad' that Christianity has caused there's MILLIONS of people who would look at what you have to say and laugh.... and then tell you the God Christianity has brought them.....

that's not to say you haven't experienced some wierdo Christians... not at all, but it's to say that your pigeon holing a huge amount of people and looking quite foolish in so doing.

I'm assuming you probably were hurt by a couple Christians (those who called you a doubting Thomas??) and this is your way to 'lash out'.... which is fine.. I hope you find what your looking for, but please stop the outlandish 'facts' you like to throw around.

Secondly.... I don't think I'll be posting anymore on this because you JUST said it yourself... you aren't open to the possibility of the Bible being the Word of God.... which is fine.... I don't need to waste my time posting responses when I am reading your posts openly and have even gotten a few good thoughts from them.... but for me to say I'm not open to the possibility that I'm wrong and you are right would be foolish of me...

Any person who disregards truth or the search for truth just because he feels like it probably won't find it..... whether it's where he's been looking or where he chooses not too.

Peace and respect...


just wanted to say that I have enjoyed typing this though:)
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

I don't hold to the "every single word in the bible is 100% accurage' because there ARE some contradictions that happened

Thanks for your time Luke, (seriously, you seem to be the only christian willing to put any effort into this) but you don't need to do any furthur research since we are obviuosly in agreement. There ARE many christians who do claim the bible is completely accurate though...


Quote:

you also won't find a fundamental truth that's contradictory...


this is a really tricky thing to say. What is "fundamental" is up for debate and, when you say fundamental truths you most likely mean abstractions that can't easily be shown to be contradictory or not.


Quote:

I'm assuming you probably were hurt by a couple Christians (those who called you a doubting Thomas??) and this is your way to 'lash out'


No. I have never been hurt by christians directly, I have never been more than annoyed. You should stop your assumptions, they make you look foolish.

I hate christianity because it is a plague on mankind. (for a multitude of reasons, many of which I have listed several times) I hate it philospically and intellectually, not because of any bad experiences.

In a similar vien I hate fascism and racism and will "lash out" agasint them, even though I have never been "hurt" by either.



Quote:

you aren't open to the possibility of the Bible being the Word of God.... which is fine.... I don't need to waste my time posting responses when I am read your posts openly and have even gotten a few good thoughts from them..


yes I mispoke somewhat there. I meant to say that I have researched this stuff and come to teh conclusion that organized religions (at least the ones I have studied) are bullshit. However, I haven't concluded what the ultimate truth is, just narrowed it down a bit.

I would still be open to Christianity if someone could really prove it, or even make a good coherent argument. I would be open to Islam and sikhism too in that regard.
It will just take a lot.



Quote:

For your crappy experiences and all the 'bad' that Christianity has caused there's MILLIONS of people who would look at what you have to say and laugh.... and then tell you the God Christianity has brought them.....

This impresses me ZERO percent. And if you thought about it, I am sure it doesn't really impress you. As a christian you hold your faith to be the true faith correct? Then to you all other faiths are wrong and many of them are probably bad (it is bad to teach people falsehoods about god, no?)

and yet there are billions of people who subscribe to other faiths and would look at your christianity and laugh, then tell you what their religion has brought them.

And for that matter, facsists, stalinists, racists and all other sorts of nasties would tell you their beliefs have benefited them.

brianwashed people typically don't complain about their brainwashing.
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

but it's to say that your pigeon holing a huge amount of people and looking quite foolish in so doing.



I have done no such thing at all. I have attacked the bible and I have attacked christianity. I have attacked orgnized religion.

I have NOT attacked "christians" nor pigeon holed them.

you are "looking quite foolish" attacking me for things I did not do.
Or at least looking like you have generic rebuttles to anyone that critcizes christianity.
Post Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Doctrine



Joined: 05 Apr 2003
Posts: 4626
Location: ATL, Livin' Swell
 Reply with quote  

Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

I post this August not to necessarily degrade you, but to let you understand why I think this thread should stop...Clearly NO proof will allow you to drop the barrier and admit mabye the bible is NOT a bunch of hocus pocus...Or just a really good story...You refuse to even admit a smidgeon of truth out of it and you have been witness to some GREAT scripture...In this case I would not consider YOU the pig but your "ignorance is bliss" attitude...And I refuse to throw my pearls of time and effort into somebody who continues to post "contradictions" who has not studied the bible itself out...Study the WHOLE bible...Not just little excerpts...I can pick up ANY book, take two separate paragraphs and make them seem to contradict...Yet one who has taken the book as a WHOLE would know that there was a whole nother chapter that would link the two...

2 Timothy 4:3 - "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Ya ain't tryin' to hear me though...

- Cyrus "Sound Doctrine the Being" Sethna
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
The Dude Abides



Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 334
Location: Miami, Fl
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
The Dude Abides wrote:
There's that one preacher that's supposed to be all cool with tattoos and shit. He appears at cornerstone and all that. He's the son of one of the televangelists. I forget his name, but he's punk.


no preacher is punk. I promise you.

Sarcasm NEVER reads well on message boards.
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

Doctrine:

were you joking in that post? Seriously...
There has not been a single post, not a SINGLE post, that has attempted to show "proof" that christianity is true.

Now that is fine. Christianity is a religion, and it is based on faith. It isn't something you can really prove, especially not over an internet message board.

But to act like I have been ignoring evidence of God's truth is simply a blatant lie. And "great scripture" is not, by any fucking stretch of the imagiation, any bit of truth.

On the other hand, I have provided a bit of evidence that the bible isn't true, and you trun tail and ran. nothing more needs to be said.

Anyway I will summerize with Born Against's Eulogy for Steve.

There was this friend of mine,
who needed something
we could not give
convenient answers and a cheap way out
killed himself without actually dying,
took a blunt lie and gouged out his mind
And I can't accept that he's found the answers
to those questions I'll be trying to solve until I die
And I can't accept that he's somehow "better off"
because the answers aren't that simple
we always assumed he wasn't either
and I want his beautiful religion to burn
because Steve's dead...
I wasn't offered the chance to say goodbye.


Last edited by August Spies on Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Doctrine



Joined: 05 Apr 2003
Posts: 4626
Location: ATL, Livin' Swell
 Reply with quote  

Like I said, I'm done...

SAS - Sorry About Steve...I'm all choked up...
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

done? you never did anything anyway, but duck and dodge.
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
The Dude Abides



Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 334
Location: Miami, Fl
 Reply with quote  

Dave Attell. Proof that God exists.
Post Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:38 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon